White Americans no longer the majority by 2042
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
Most Cuban Hispanics here in Florida vote Republican, and they make up the majority of Hispanics here. (They are white, just ask one.)
ne of the biggest surprises in the presidential election may have been the ground shift - a momentous one for the Democrats - in how Hispanics voted: namely, in enormous numbers and, very often, Republican. Now, even though they claimed a majority of the Latino vote, Democrats suddenly find themselves in real danger of losing one of the biggest pieces of their base, one that had been counted on for loyalty approaching that of African-Americans. This happened, in part, because the Republicans went to church.
In making their gains, the Republicans exploited a largely unheralded fact: among minority groups, Hispanics rank with the most religious. About one-third told pollsters they consider themselves born-again Christians. The vast majority of the remainder are Roman Catholic, often devoutly so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/opinion/08mon3.html
In making their gains, the Republicans exploited a largely unheralded fact: among minority groups, Hispanics rank with the most religious. About one-third told pollsters they consider themselves born-again Christians. The vast majority of the remainder are Roman Catholic, often devoutly so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/opinion/08mon3.html
Most of the hispanics that immigrate to the western states are white latinos anyways. On paper there will be a huge difference but in actuality not really.... I know on one forum im a member of the blacks are super pissed that the white looking mexicans who make up the majority of east LA try and fit in with the whites there.... Whites and hispanics are marrying the most between themselves, and alot of vatos already have blue eyed cousins who are latino anyways...
The term white is too inclusive
The term white is too inclusive
Actually, Latinos are forcing African-Americans out of African-American neighborhoods. Only a fool and a racist thinks there is all sorts of love between minorities and they are going to band together to get "whitey"!
Of course we all look at the world in stand still in the moment terms. We are
of the belief that things will go on the same until 2024, but that is a stretch in
itself. I think if the economy goes south, if Europe and North America experience
social unrest or some fanatical group takes power, or who knows what else all
that may not matter. It could also be that the groups of young people leading our
society might well give up the superstitions and hatreds of the past and it won't
make any difference what colour people are. Wouldn't that be nice, personally
I don't fear the future or the unknown they are things I can't do anything about and
usually these problems sort themselves out before the worst arrives.
of the belief that things will go on the same until 2024, but that is a stretch in
itself. I think if the economy goes south, if Europe and North America experience
social unrest or some fanatical group takes power, or who knows what else all
that may not matter. It could also be that the groups of young people leading our
society might well give up the superstitions and hatreds of the past and it won't
make any difference what colour people are. Wouldn't that be nice, personally
I don't fear the future or the unknown they are things I can't do anything about and
usually these problems sort themselves out before the worst arrives.
The study does assume that minority groups such as Hispanics will maintain a higher than average birth rate. However, since relatively low birth rates in developed nations are the norm it is likely that the birth rate among Hispanics and others will slow down, thus skewing the prediction.
Population numbers are difficult to predict with any certainty. Currently birthrates in the US are as high as they were in the 1950s. However, this is not the norm for a modern industrialized nation. No other nation in the G8 or even the G20 has a birth rate as high as the US and it is likely that the birth rate among groups like Hispanics will decline as they integrate more fully into US society.
There have been similar predictions of this sort. For example in the 1950s it was predicted that French-speaking Canadians would overtake English-speaking Canadians in total numbers due to Quebec's high birth rate. It was called Quebec's "revenge of the cradle." However, within two decades Quebec's population growth had crashed and the province currently has the lowest birthrate in Canada. Similarly, if the US had maintained its 1950s birthrate it would probably have a population in excess of 500 million. That, of course, did not happen and it is unlikely current trends will continue either.
In any case, does it really matter what the ethnic background of Americans is? Black or white, Hispanic or non-Hispanic they will all be Americans.
Population numbers are difficult to predict with any certainty. Currently birthrates in the US are as high as they were in the 1950s. However, this is not the norm for a modern industrialized nation. No other nation in the G8 or even the G20 has a birth rate as high as the US and it is likely that the birth rate among groups like Hispanics will decline as they integrate more fully into US society.
There have been similar predictions of this sort. For example in the 1950s it was predicted that French-speaking Canadians would overtake English-speaking Canadians in total numbers due to Quebec's high birth rate. It was called Quebec's "revenge of the cradle." However, within two decades Quebec's population growth had crashed and the province currently has the lowest birthrate in Canada. Similarly, if the US had maintained its 1950s birthrate it would probably have a population in excess of 500 million. That, of course, did not happen and it is unlikely current trends will continue either.
In any case, does it really matter what the ethnic background of Americans is? Black or white, Hispanic or non-Hispanic they will all be Americans.
This is the kind of article that the left likes, another group will silently take over the country. We are so open that anyone can get in and take responsibility and change the character of the country. A kind of Eurabia.
Although in Canada with all the wealthy immigrants from Asia and and pushing housing prices in Vancouver out of sight. The big business lobby is forcing govt to abandon the middle class. Money is money and if Canadians don't have it, then big biz will find it somewhere else.
Although in Canada with all the wealthy immigrants from Asia and and pushing housing prices in Vancouver out of sight. The big business lobby is forcing govt to abandon the middle class. Money is money and if Canadians don't have it, then big biz will find it somewhere else.
I think it might be useful for you to explain how the left would like the idea of an immigrant group taking over the country. That makes absolutely no sense.
I read this in an Anne Colter book. The right-big biz, wants unfettered markets so it can outsource anything it wants to maximize profits. They see a borderless world where govt just gets in the way of their profits. So the less govt interference in business the better. They also want unfettered immigration because to capital, labour is just another cost and it must do everything it can to lower them. Ergo massive immigration because we are all people in this world that is really borderless, especially from space. It can be a very romantic idea. All peoples of the world are friends, nations do not exist. Tune the Coke song or something.
The left loves massive uncontrolled immigration because Canada is such a fantistic country everyone in the world should live here. The left, especially the media doesn't feel the slightest competition from Asians or Africans, because how many of these people write or speak on TV? None. Open the borders!!!!! No one is illegal!!! The latter is an actual group in Vancouver.
no one is illegal - toronto | STATUS FOR ALL!! ACCESS WITHOUT FEAR!! Check it out.
I agree. From CCPA, a left wing organization too. Stating that the large number of foreign workers entering the country is depressing wages rather than stimulating the economy. Immigration is at sky high levels, as it has been for 20 years, and unemployment is up, so obviously there are too many foreign workers entering the country. Time to sharply reduce the temp workers and immigration.
I heard on the radio that immigrants need to bring over their grandparents to prosper in Canada. Funny, I don't need my grandparents or parent to succeed here. Why do they?
Are there too many foreign workers?
I heard on the radio that immigrants need to bring over their grandparents to prosper in Canada. Funny, I don't need my grandparents or parent to succeed here. Why do they?
Are there too many foreign workers?
Are there too many foreign workers?
Temporary workers with few rights are filling shortages created by the low wages offered by some employers
By David Green, Vancouver Sun
Temporary workers with few rights are filling shortages created by the low wages offered by some employers
By David Green, Vancouver Sun
An election should be a time to discuss key policy directions. One of the biggest policy transformations in the Harper era has been the enormous growth in Temporary Foreign Workers (TFWs) - "guest" workers who come to Canada for short periods, generally tied to specific employers, without future prospects for immigration or citizenship, and without a genuine ability to defend and protect their workplace rights (if they believe their employment rights or workplace safety has been violated, and they complain, they may be rewarded with a ticket home).
In 2004, Canada admitted 112,543 TFWs. By 2008, this had grown to 192,281 (a growth of 57 per cent) before declining somewhat in 2009. To put this in perspective, Canada now admits almost triple the number of TFWs as it does immigrants under the conventional "Economic Class." The expansion in the TFW program is unprecedented and represents a sea change in immigration policy. Yet there has been only limited debate on this issue (it received a short mention by Jack Layton in the leaders debate).
What is the rationale for this expansion? In its Annual Report to Parliament, Citizenship and Immigration Canada argues that TFWs are needed to "address labour market shortages and to provide other economic opportunities for Canadians."
Underlying this rationale is a view of the economy as an engine. If one piece in the engine is missing -no matter how small -the whole engine will stop. On the face of it, this appears reasonable. If a specialized technician is needed and can't be found in Canada, bringing in a person on a temporary basis to set up a new piece of technology seems like a good idea. That is how the TFW program was justified in the past. But with the number of TFWs entering in a year far exceeding the number of regular economic immigrants, this can't be the only argument behind the current program. In fact, the number of TFWs in professional occupations (where one might reasonably make a skill-gap argument) did not change between 2005 and 2009, while the number of TFWs in the "Elemental and
Labourers" occupation group (which, by definition, does not include workers with advanced skills) increased by 400 per cent.
The only conceivable explanation for this pattern is that the Harper government has taken the labour shortage argument to an extreme: if a firm has difficulty filling any position of any type, workers need to be brought in or economic growth is put at risk. In 2006, the government sped up the processing of TFWs in occupations facing shortages in Alberta and B.C. The list of occupations included janitors and food counter workers. Apparently, under this rationale, economic growth would stall if a fast-food outlet had difficulty staffing its restaurants.
What is missing in this rationale is the wage. When firms claim there is a "shortage" of workers, what is implicitly meant is that they cannot find workers at the wage they are offering. This extra condition is crucial. Economies do not operate like engines but more like organic entities that are constantly in flux. Those fluctuations are shaped by wages and prices.
If a food kiosk can't find workers then it needs to raise its wages and prices. If customers decide that price is too high and start making their own cup at home, that is the way the market should work. Society's resources (in this case the workers) should be allocated where they have the most value to the economy.
The key question is when do we want to intervene in that allocation process? It's clear why employers argue for TFWs. If demand for coffee rises and the firm can keep its wage costs low by bringing in workers at its current low wage then profits will rise. But the expansion of the TFW program has been accompanied by an expansion in the number of stories of these workers being exploited by firms. Do we, as a society, want to keep the price of services low at the expense of creating an underclass of workers with tenuous labour rights?
More broadly, real wages for high school or less educated workers starting a new job declined by approximately 20 per cent between 1980 and the mid-2000s. Why would we embark on a policy that exacerbates this trend? The economy will not stop if their wages rise. This part of the policy seems to be more about keeping wages down than generating economic growth.
What about the skilled TFWs, where one might make an argument that there is a gap that needs filling? Here, too, we need to ask hard questions before interfering in the operation of the market. Bringing in pipefitters and carpenters reduces the return to investing in those occupations. At a time when we want to encourage young people to invest in skills, it seems odd to expect them to do so while sending them the message that if wages in their occupation ever rise, we will bring in TFWs to stop it.
The expansion of TFWs is a Harper government initiative that breaks with past policies. Looking at it closely reveals a policy direction that is heavily focused on business interests to the detriment of workers' wages. Whether that is the direction Canadians want should be debated much more than it has been.
David Green is a professor of economics at the University of British Columbia, and a research associate with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
In 2004, Canada admitted 112,543 TFWs. By 2008, this had grown to 192,281 (a growth of 57 per cent) before declining somewhat in 2009. To put this in perspective, Canada now admits almost triple the number of TFWs as it does immigrants under the conventional "Economic Class." The expansion in the TFW program is unprecedented and represents a sea change in immigration policy. Yet there has been only limited debate on this issue (it received a short mention by Jack Layton in the leaders debate).
What is the rationale for this expansion? In its Annual Report to Parliament, Citizenship and Immigration Canada argues that TFWs are needed to "address labour market shortages and to provide other economic opportunities for Canadians."
Underlying this rationale is a view of the economy as an engine. If one piece in the engine is missing -no matter how small -the whole engine will stop. On the face of it, this appears reasonable. If a specialized technician is needed and can't be found in Canada, bringing in a person on a temporary basis to set up a new piece of technology seems like a good idea. That is how the TFW program was justified in the past. But with the number of TFWs entering in a year far exceeding the number of regular economic immigrants, this can't be the only argument behind the current program. In fact, the number of TFWs in professional occupations (where one might reasonably make a skill-gap argument) did not change between 2005 and 2009, while the number of TFWs in the "Elemental and
Labourers" occupation group (which, by definition, does not include workers with advanced skills) increased by 400 per cent.
The only conceivable explanation for this pattern is that the Harper government has taken the labour shortage argument to an extreme: if a firm has difficulty filling any position of any type, workers need to be brought in or economic growth is put at risk. In 2006, the government sped up the processing of TFWs in occupations facing shortages in Alberta and B.C. The list of occupations included janitors and food counter workers. Apparently, under this rationale, economic growth would stall if a fast-food outlet had difficulty staffing its restaurants.
What is missing in this rationale is the wage. When firms claim there is a "shortage" of workers, what is implicitly meant is that they cannot find workers at the wage they are offering. This extra condition is crucial. Economies do not operate like engines but more like organic entities that are constantly in flux. Those fluctuations are shaped by wages and prices.
If a food kiosk can't find workers then it needs to raise its wages and prices. If customers decide that price is too high and start making their own cup at home, that is the way the market should work. Society's resources (in this case the workers) should be allocated where they have the most value to the economy.
The key question is when do we want to intervene in that allocation process? It's clear why employers argue for TFWs. If demand for coffee rises and the firm can keep its wage costs low by bringing in workers at its current low wage then profits will rise. But the expansion of the TFW program has been accompanied by an expansion in the number of stories of these workers being exploited by firms. Do we, as a society, want to keep the price of services low at the expense of creating an underclass of workers with tenuous labour rights?
More broadly, real wages for high school or less educated workers starting a new job declined by approximately 20 per cent between 1980 and the mid-2000s. Why would we embark on a policy that exacerbates this trend? The economy will not stop if their wages rise. This part of the policy seems to be more about keeping wages down than generating economic growth.
What about the skilled TFWs, where one might make an argument that there is a gap that needs filling? Here, too, we need to ask hard questions before interfering in the operation of the market. Bringing in pipefitters and carpenters reduces the return to investing in those occupations. At a time when we want to encourage young people to invest in skills, it seems odd to expect them to do so while sending them the message that if wages in their occupation ever rise, we will bring in TFWs to stop it.
The expansion of TFWs is a Harper government initiative that breaks with past policies. Looking at it closely reveals a policy direction that is heavily focused on business interests to the detriment of workers' wages. Whether that is the direction Canadians want should be debated much more than it has been.
David Green is a professor of economics at the University of British Columbia, and a research associate with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Well isn't that coooool. Maybe it will happen sooner so I can reap the benefits of being a minority instead of paying for them.
Your not driinking your kool-ade properly. The very existence of a multicultural society means vibrancy and greatness. You're not understanding the problem, you obviously need some reeducation. The kool-ade is supposed to make you feel as guilty as all get out so you wish to prostrate yourself to the multicultural, sorry, multiracial gods as much as possible and as quickly as possible. It may be necessary to send some nice men to kic-, woops, knock on your door soon some evening. All this because you have unauthorized ideas on race. Race doesn't exist of course, but you must support the proper ideas on a concept that doesn't exist, according to the pc correctos. Sleep well.
I confess I haven't read the whole thread but is that factoring things at today's trend. Should the lights go out for long periods of time and the TV or Net doesn't work I would bet the birth rate would be right up there with (insert appropriate racist word here).
A lower birth rate means we don't feel threatened really. Otherwise we would boost it for self-preservation.
Interesting point, it's our tech that keeps the birthrate down. Tech gives us something to live for, a better life. I suppose in other countries you're pleased with life as it is, and have numerous kids to take care of you in your old age. Things are fine as is and more kids can't hurt.
I'm not sure what you are saying. Do you mean both the left and right want high levels of immigration? I haven't noticed that in any of the party platforms and I expect I will not find it in any policy book.
All parties support the current high level of 300,000 immigrants per year. There has been and there will not be any debate about this in the current campaign. Ergo, there is agreement across the political spectrum about immigration policy. Unemployment up? Keep immigration high, no problem. Gotta keep paying off that endless colonial guilt.
Right, it is not written down, and in the late 1980s when immigration was increased to the current high levels, there was no public debate about this. The rubes need not be consulted on inherent racism. The elites decided it was good, so the floodgates were opened and remain open.
Kinda obvious some of the effects of the kool-ade are wearing off for you.
Looks like Whitey is getting an inferiority complex. Could it be karma coming back to bite his ass? We overran this continent murdered or otherwise marginalized the indigenous population and now we are getting overrun by people from all over the planet. Now Whitey is scared that the same thing is going to happen to him. Ooooo! Me thinks the shoe is on the other foot and it don't feel too comfortable, eh!.